green
Positive treatment
4.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Evelyn Davidson v. Carl Korman
See Zuress v. Donley, 606 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 3056 , 180 L.Ed.2d 886 (2011); MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir.2006).
cited
Cited "see"
Harris v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.
See Saleh v. Titan, 580 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir.2009) (finding that claims by detainees alleging mistreatment by contractors were preempted), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Cf. 3055, 180 L.Ed.2d 886 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dimm v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
See Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., 2004-2095 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/7/07), 949 So.2d 1266 , writs denied, 2007-0662, 2007-0654 (La. 1/7/08), 973 So.2d 740 , cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1094 , 128 S.Ct. 2908 , 171 L.Ed.2d 842 (2008) (Scott I); See also Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., 2009-0461 (La.App. 4th Cir.4/23/10), 36 So.3d 1046 , writs denied, 2010-1358, 2010-1361 (La.9/3/10), 44 So.3d 686 , 707, cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 3057 , 180 L.Ed.2d 886 (2011) (Scott II).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
In that case, this court held that subject matter jurisdiction under the ATS existed where a corporate defendant was alleged to have violated international law, stating the question as whether the “federal common law ... provide[s] a private cause of action for violations of customary international law,” id. at 1195 , which mimics what the Supreme Court concluded in Sosa, 542 U.S. at 711, 721 , 731 n. 19, 124 S.Ct. 2739 ; see also Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C.Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 131 S.Ct. 3055 , 180 L.Ed.2d 886 (2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Haidar Muhsin Saleh
v.
Titan Corporation
v.
Titan Corporation
No. 09-1313.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 2011.
180 L. Ed. 2d 886
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Same case below, 388 U.S. App. D.C. 114, 580 F.3d 1.